Mexico Baja Red Rock Fishery 1st Surveillance Audit Report

F-SCS-0100

Authors 1 Dr. Carlos Alvarez Flores 2 Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone

January 31, 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 2 Glossary ...... 3 1 General Information ...... 4 2 Executive Summary & Conclusion ...... 5 3 Background ...... 7 3.1 Updates on Scientific base of information ...... 9 3.1.1 General Research System ...... 9 3.1.2 Stock Status and Management ...... 9 3.1.3 Monitoring of Ecosystem Impacts ...... 13 3.2 Updates on the management system and regulations ...... 5 3.2.1 Harvest Strategy and Control Rule ...... 5 3.2.2 Establishment of a New Marine Reserve ...... 6 3.2.3 Prohibition of Retention of Lobster by Trawlers ...... 8 3.3 Updates on Personnel involved in science, management or industry ...... 8 3.4 Changes to the fishing operations and traceability systems ...... 8 4 Assessment Process ...... 9 4.1 Assessment Methodologies ...... 9 4.2 Consultations ...... 10 4.3 Harmonization Considerations ...... 12 4.4 Assessment Team ...... 13 5 Results ...... 14 6 References ...... 24 7 Appendices ...... 26 7.1 Appendix 1. Re-scoring evaluation tables (if necessary) ...... 26 7.2 Appendix 2. Stakeholder submissions (if any) ...... 30 7.3 Appendix 3. Client Action Plan ...... 31 7.3.1 Original Client Action Plan ...... 31 7.3.2 Additional Actions Agreed to at the 1st Annual Surveillance Audit to Meet Audit Requirements. Meeting Minutes. December 5, 2017...... 41

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 Glossary

BCS Sur Bmin Minimum Biomass BMSY biomass at maximum sustainable yield CAB Certification Assessment Body CAP Client Action Plan Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (National Commision of Natural CONANP Protected Areas) Comisión Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura (National Commission of and CONAPESCA Agriculture) CR Certification Requeriments DOF Diario Oficial (Official Gazette) FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology v2.1 FCR Fisheries Certification Requirements (V2.0) Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera Baja FEDECOOP California, F.C.L HCR Harvest Control rule INAPESCA Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (National Fisheries Institute) LGEEPA Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables (General Law for Sustainable LGPAS Fishing and Aquaculture) LRP Limit Reference Point MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MT Metric Ton NGO Non-Governmental Organization NOM Norma Oficial Mexicana PI Performance Indicator POA Annual Operative Program PROFEPA Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente RBF Risk Based Framework Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación SAGARPA (Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food) SCS SCS Global Services SIAP Agriculture and Fishery Information Service TAC Total Allowable Catch TL Total length UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 1 General Information

Fishery name Baja California Red Rock Lobster Fishery Unit(s) of assessment Red rock lobster (Panulirus interruptus) caught by wire traps by the 9 Cooperatives in the Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas “Baja California”

The red rock lobster caught by the UoA is part of a metapopulation that ranges from Southern California, USA, south to the Baja California Peninsula tip in Mexico. The stock harvested by the UoA is a self-sustaining unit from the metapopulation which can be managed independently.

Date certified 30 Dec 2016 Date of expiry 30 Dec 2021 Surveillance level and type Level 6/normal- on-site Date of surveillance audit December 4-5, 2017 Justification NA- within 1 month of the certificate anniversary date Surveillance stage (tick one) 1st Surveillance x 2nd Surveillance 3rd Surveillance 4th Surveillance Other (expedited etc) Surveillance team Lead assessor: Dr. Carlos Alvarez Flores Assessor(s): Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone CAB name SCS Global Services CAB contact details Address 2000 Powell St. Ste.600 Emeryville CA 94608, USA Phone/Fax +1.510-452-8000 main +1.510452-8001 fax Email [email protected] Contact name(s) Dr. Sian Morgan Client contact details Address Soto 283, Ensenada, BC 22830 Mexico Phone/Fax Email [email protected] Contact name(s) Mr. Mario Ramade

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 2 Executive Summary & Conclusion

This report summarizes the findings from the 2017 first surveillance audit of the Mexico Baja California Red Rock Lobster Fishery. This fishery has previously undergone full MSC assessment and two re- assessments. The full assessment was completed in April 2004 by Dr. Bruce Phillips, Dr. Daniel Lluch Belda and Dr. Arturo Muhlia using the Fisheries Certification Methodology version 3. The re-assessment was completed in June 2011 by Dr. Oscar Sosa-Nishizaki, Dr. Daniel Lluch Belda and Dr. Sabine Daume, using MSC FAM V2.1. The second re-assessment was completed in 2016, conducted by Dr. Carlos Alvarez Flores and Ms. Sandra Andraka using the MSC CRV1.3. This first annual surveillance was conducted by Dr. Carlos Alvarez Flores and Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone.

The 2017 first annual surveillance audit focused on any changes since the 2nd re-assessment, and monitoring of continued compliance with the MSC Principles and Criteria. The fishery received seven conditions in the 2016 re-assessment (1.1.2b, 1.2.2a, 1.2.2b, 2.1.3d, 2.2.3, 3.2.4a, 3.2.4b). Conditions on Principle 1 pertain to the definition of explicit reference points and a harvest control rule, Principle 2 conditions pertain to information on bait and , and Principle 3 conditions pertain to a research plan and sharing and implementation of results.

In this year’s first annual surveillance report, the assessment team evaluated expected outcomes of open conditions against the first annual surveillance milestones. By year one the client was expected to present specific forms of evidence regarding preliminary progress. No conditions were expected to close, but the assessment team found that one condition was able to be closed ahead of target (condition 3-1).

Prior to, during, and within 2 weeks of the onsite assessment the assessment team received documentation from the fishery client group (FEDECOOP) and government (INAPESCA) regarding updates to the fishery and progress on conditions. The on-site meetings were well attended with representatives of the fishery cooperatives, INAPESCA, and CONANP. An additional 100+ stakeholders were notified of the surveillance audit, but no additional fishery stakeholders submitted comment or expressed interest in attending the onsite meeting.

Based on the evidence reviewed in the course of the surveillance audit, it is SCS’s view that the Mexico Baja California Red Rock Lobster Fishery continues to meet the standards of the MSC and complies with the ‘Requirements for Continued Certification.’ SCS recommends the continued use of the MSC certificate through to the end of this certificate cycle, pending continued positive findings at each annual surveillance audit.

However, there are several areas where remedial actions have been deemed necessary, due to a lack of requisite progress against the Year 1 milestones on conditions 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and 2-1. The onsite meeting attendees held a formal meeting to discuss the preliminary audit findings and remedial actions identified by the assessment team immediately following the audit closing meeting, and agreed to specific next steps to meet the actions required by the 2nd annual surveillance. Minutes from this meeting (in Spanish) may be found in Appendix 3 (Section 7.3.2). SCS recommends that the client plan

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 ahead to provide more documentation 2-4 weeks prior to the onsite meeting, in order to allow for additional time for document clarification and additional requests that may support more positive assessment outcomes. Table 1. Summary of Assessment Conditions

Performance Condition number Status PI original score PI revised score indicator (PI) 1-1 1.1.2(b) Behind Target 75 NA 1-2 1.2.2 (a) Behind Target 65 NA 1-3 1.2.2(b) Behind Target 65 NA 2-1 2.1.3 (d) Behind Target 75 NA 2-2 2.2.3 On Target 70 NA 3-1 3.2.4 (a) Closed 60 70 3-2 3.2.4 (b) On Target 60 70* *PI revised based on progress on condition 3-1.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 3 Background

The assessed fishery for the red rock lobster (Panulirus interruptus) occurs from Cedros Island in Baja California through Punta Abreojos in (Table 2, Figure 1). Members of the nine fishing cooperatives in the UoC are distributed in at least ten villages in the fishing area and produce approximately 80% of the catch of this species in the region. Fishing methods include 5-7 m long fiberglass boats equipped with 60-115 Hp outboard motors. The crews (2-3 fishermen) participate in setting out wire traps, which are fitted with biodegradable staples and escape gaps to allow sub-legal lobster to escape and to avoid ghost fishing. The boats are also equipped with hydraulic or mechanic winches. Once caught, are kept alive for a few days in special floating wooden containers called recibas. Live lobsters are transported by boat to landing spots and then transported by land to reception centers distributed along the coast. One cooperative may have several landing points but only one reception center and fishers from one cooperative will not deliver catch at landing points from other cooperatives. Most of the catch is sold alive; however, some are steam-cooked whole, packed in boxes and frozen or processed as frozen lobster tails. The main market for Baja California red rock lobster is Asia. The lobsters are taken under bond to and Los Angeles, and then shipped mainly to China and Vietnam and in smaller volumes to Taiwan and Hong Kong. Table 2. Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Unit of Certification (UoC).

Units of Assessment: Defined as the species, location and gear assessed

UoA: Species Red rock lobster (Panulirus interruptus)

UoA: Geographical Area (Local From Cedros Island in Baja California through Punta Abreojos, Baja Population Unit within larger California Sur metapopulation)

UoA: Gear Type Wire Traps

The metapopulation ranges from Southern California, USA, south to the Further information: Stock (overall Baja California Peninsula tip in Mexico. The stock harvested by the UoA is biological metapopulation) a self-sustaining unit from the metapopulation which can be managed independently. Further information: Management CONAPESCA-The National Commission on Aquaculture and Fisheries in System Mexico (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca) Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas “Baja California” Client Group (FEDECOOP) Fishers in the UoC for the assessed 9 Cooperatives in the Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas Geographical Area. “Baja California” Other Eligible Fishers that may join There are no other eligible fishers the certificate for the chosen stock

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41

Figure 1. Concession areas for the nine FEDECOOP cooperatives under assessment. From McCay, 2014.

Three government agencies are primarily responsible for the management of the Mexican red rock lobster fishery. CONAPESCA is the administering entity of SAGARPA (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación), a unit of the Federal Executive Branch of the Government of Mexico, and the agency responsible for administering the fisheries and aquaculture legislation in Mexico. INAPESCA is the research arm of the fisheries management authority, CONAPESCA (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca), and provides data used to make management decisions. CONAPESCA is responsible for creation and implementation of regulations related to permitting, harvest controls and closures. PROFEPA (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente), the federal agency responsible for environmental protection, is the enforcement agency operating under the legal framework of the General Law for Sustainable Fishing and Aquaculture (LGPAS) and the General Act of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA-1996). Table 3. TAC and Catch Data

TAC Year NA* Amount NA* UoA share of TAC Year NA* Amount NA* UoC share of TAC Year NA* Amount NA* Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2016/2017** Amount 843,833 kg recent) Year (second 2015/2016 Amount 893,928 kg most recent) *The fishery is not managed with a TAC system.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 3.1 Updates on Scientific base of information

3.1.1 General Research System The INAPESCA has not made major changes to their research program, however, at the local level it is clear that it is attempting to incorporate concepts and actions to meet MSC requirements. The Director of the Regional Office also indicates that the program is moving towards a more regional approach to understand the dynamics of the fishery and how it affects the different species at a larger scale. No further details were provided. The INAPESCA Regional Center in La Paz provided a modified regular Annual Operative Program (POA; INAPESCA 2016) that now has a structure and content that better fits the requirements in CR CB4.10.3 “a written document that includes a specific research plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research”. For further detail see the Results

3.1.2 Stock Status and Management Catch

The catch of the red rock lobster in the west coast of Baja California has been declining since 2011, with catches in seasons 2015/16 and 2016/17 lower than the historical average (Figure 2). Although the data for the season 2017/18 is not complete yet, the catch record so far indicates a potential recovery of the catch (A. Vega, pers. comm).

Figure 2. Trend and variability in the production of red lobster in the central region off the west coast of the Baja California Peninsula. The red line represents the historical average (1,114 mt) from 1970 to 2016. Reproduced from Camacho-Bareño et al. (2017).

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 Observing the trend in effort compared to historical catch (Figure 3), it is noteworthy that effort more than doubled from the mid 60s to the early 90s during the period of low catch. During that period, while effort continued increasing until the mid 80s, the catch remained relatively stable at an approximate average of 900 t, suggesting abundance steadily declined. From the mid 80s to the mid 90s effort declined about 20%. Effort from the mid 90s to about 2013 increased approximately 15% while the catch increased and remained high at an approximate average of 1,400 t, with a historical high close to 2,000 t. Overall, while catch in the second half of the time series was on average more than 50% larger than in the first half, effort was never higher in the second half, indicating that abundance increased notably.

Figure 3. Trends in catch and effort in the fishery of red lobster in the central region off the west coast of the Baja California Peninsula (area of the UoC). The X axis presents the first year of the season. Reproduced from Camacho-Bareño et al. (2017).

Details of the catch and effort by individual cooperatives is presented in Table 4.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 Table 4. Catch and effort in the fishery for red lobster in the central region of the Baja California Peninsula. Catch in mt, effort in traps lifted. Data provided by FEDECOOP.

2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 Cooperative Total Total Total Total Total Total catch effort catch effort catch effort Pescadores Nacionales de Abulón 177.5 250,946 94.6 223,345 71.5 199,574 Buzos y Pescadores 151.5 155,392 109.8 135,595 71.0 166,346 La Purísima 227.5 366,231 205.0 334,812 164.5 382,108 Bahía Tortugas 141.9 232,437 83.4 181,093 90.5 206,515 Emancipación 102.2 201,562 66.8 242,138 70.7 242,617 California de San Ignacio 56.6 86,196 35.3 84,523 37.4 101,576 Leyes de Reforma 70.5 77,165 59.1 144,920 86.5 155,725 Progreso 87.3 300,856 92.4 267,953 112.1 285,480 Punta Abreojos 157.2 256,829 147.6 241,296 140.0 274,191 TOTAL 1172.1 1,927,614 893.9 1,828,675 843.8 2,014,132

Stock Assessment

Results of the stock assessment indicate that the size distribution of males and females, both in the population and the commercial catch of the 2016/17 season remains very similar to the trend from 2000 to 2016 (see Figure 4 for the female distributions).

Figure 4. Size distribution in the population (bars) and the commercial catch (broken line) of female red lobsters in the central region of the Baja California Peninsula. Left, historic average; right, season 2016-17. Reproduced from Camacho-Bareño et al. (2017).

The biomass trend predicted with a logistic model is consistent with the previous observations (see above) derived from the trends in catch and effort (Figure 5). The biomass declined from 1960 to the early 90s as effort increased while the catch remained relatively stable during the 70s and 80s. After season length restrictions in the mid 90s biomass and catch increased. This approach to estimate population parameters adds probability distributions for some parameters such as Bo, r and MSY. There appears to be considerable uncertainty around r.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41

Figure 5. Biomass trend as predicted with a logistic model (line and dots) and catch history (bars) in fishery of red lobster off the central region of the Baja California Peninsula. The blue line represents the biomass estimated to produce the MSY. Reproduced from Camacho-Bareño et al. (2017).

The stock assessment estimated management parameters using the logistic model are shown in Table 5. According to this approach, the stock biomass continues to be above the level producing MSY and the harvest rate is less than half the level producing MSY.

Table 5. Management parameters estimated with a logistic model in the red lobster fishery in the central region of the Baja California Peninsula. With data from Camacho-Bareño et al. (2017).

Parameter Current Value Value at MSY Current/MSY ratio Biomass (t) 15,962 9,930 1.61 Catch (t) 1,355 2,135 0.63 Harvest Rate (U) 0.085 0.22 0.39 Fishing Mortality Rate (F) 0.081 0.19 0.42 Effort (f) 2,262 3,419 0.66

The population status was also estimated using models with different levels of complexity and structure. Results of these analyses appear to show differences in predicted biomass which either require clarification or would suggest considerable model related uncertainty. Differences between aggregated models and models with structure are yet to be explained and resolved (Compare Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41

Figure 6. Biomass of red lobster in the central region of the Baja California Peninsula estimated using the ADAPT platform. Reproduced from Camacho-Bareño et al. (2017).

The stock assessment recommends that effort not be increased despite the estimated stock status above the level producing MSY. The assessment also recommends considering the inclusion of an upper size limit to increase the reproductive potential.

3.1.3 Monitoring of Ecosystem Impacts

The logbook system, designed by INAPESCA and FEDECOOP, records data on retained and bycatch species, including species used for bait. Tropical lobsters are noted in the catch column along with red rock lobsters, at species level. From the 2011/12 season to date, the client has provided evidence of the use of the logbooks to report interactions with non-target species. At the start of the non-target monitoring program, the agreed sampling effort was to record data for at least one “lobster fishing team” (equipo langostero) which included vessel and traps, per cooperative and fishing area on one fishing trip each month. Sampling involved review of the logbook information that is recorded for all trips. There are cooperative technicians that report these data to FEDECOOP on a monthly basis as part of the regular fishery monitoring system. In response to conditions on the re-assessment, 100% of logbooks are now being reviewed and compiled by technicians for reporting to FEDECOOP.

Monitoring Program Challenges in the Re-assessment

During the re-assessment it was noted that some records contain species level details while others records only record detail to species groups, and they are not recording whether organisms encountered were retained, discarded, dead, or alive. There was historically no standardized data recording process to assure consistent resolution of information between cooperatives. In logbooks, the “observations” column is used to report “incidental catch” but in wide categories such as fish, , birds, etc., without specifying the species or the destination of the catch. A lack of reporting of species level information, for bait species ‘sardines’ in particular, precludes a characterization of ‘main’ species with a high degree of certainty. Species have traditionally been recorded in numbers.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 In addition to the fishery dependent reporting, the re-assessment team reviewed data from the 2006/07 season in a study conducted by Shester (2008) for his doctoral dissertation, whose purpose was to cover some information gaps found in the first evaluation. The findings of Shester vary significantly from the annual fishery data, with overall greater estimations of bycatch, particularly of cormorants. Due to this discrepancy and the deficiencies in the ongoing fishery dependent monitoring, conditions were placed on the main species to improve the consistency and depth of reporting by fishers.

Updates to the Monitoring System

At the first annual surveillance, a sample of hard copies of logbooks from 6 of the 9 cooperatives were provided upon request of the assessment team. The logbooks indicated inconsistent progress in terms of more detailed reporting, where some, but not all, reported the fate of sharks incidentally caught. In regards to shark post-capture status, the client also submitted a video demonstrating the live release of sharks by FEDECOOP fishers. The assessment team noted that there was some inconsistency between cooperatives in the logbook form being used, as INAPESCA has been testing modifications to the official forms. There was no apparent progress in recording bait species either caught or purchased.

As of the 2016/2017 fishing season, bycatch has been recorded in weight (kg) instead of numbers, and as noted above, logbooks are no longer being ‘sampled’, but rather 100% of logbook data is being collected by each cooperative and reported to FEDECOOP. Weights were estimated by each cooperative using samples from their respective plants. This provides the assessment team the ability to evaluate the entire catch composition for Principle 2 evaluation, including lobster, bycatch, and bait, by weight, as appropriate for the MSC process (Table 6). Table 6. Catch information from the 2016/2017 fishing season. Compiled from information provided by FEDECOOP (Ramade-Villanueva et al 2017; Ramade-Villanueva, pers. comm).

Type Weight (Kg) Percentage of Total Red rock lobster 843,833 20.8% Other lobsters 22,927 0.6% Bycatch 57,977 1.4% Bait 3,131,347 77.4%

3.1.3.1 Retained Species: Bait

Background

Bait in the fishery is obtained from two sources: (1) bycatch from the lobster fishery and (2) other fisheries occurring within the area of the unit of assessment. To date, information has been insufficient to allow estimation of the contribution of each of these sources. FEDECOOP uses the generic “sardine” term for a category of bait that groups several small pelagic species, including Pacific sardine, anchoveta, mackerel, thread herring and others. The

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 vast majority of bait utilized in the red rock lobster fishery are “sardines”, and data presented from 2016/2017 confirms that this trend persists (

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 Table 7). “Sardines”, or small pelagics, bait is both purchased in Ensenada and caught locally by the FEDECOOP fishers and records have been traditionally kept, but not to the species level (M. Ramade, personal communication, June 2016).

In the absence of volumes corresponding to the different small pelagic species the team used the landing data from the commercial small pelagics fishery off the coast of Baja California as a proxy to estimate species’ proportions for the purposes of the re-assessment. In the 2014 fishing season, Pacific sardine comprised 98.12% of the total catch of small pelagics in the western coast of Baja California while other species such as mackerel and anchovy summed to 1.88% (Enciso and Cotero 2015). The team determined that Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) was the dominant species in this group, and thus scored as main. However, because species’ proportion in the small pelagics fishery is highly variable across different years, a condition was placed for information for retained species (PI 2.1.3) with the aim to obtain more data to assign contributions of different small pelagic species with greater accuracy.

Updated Information

The client provided a summary of bait from the 2016-2017 season which demonstrates the continued dominance of “sardines” as bait. This data is presented as additional to the bait information presented for the fishery re-assessment. This year’s data continues to support that “sardines” are the only bait species that would classify as ‘Main’ according the MSC criteria of proportion of total catch by weight.

Table 7. Volume in kilograms and corresponding percentage of bait species/species group used in the red rock lobster fishery. Information was obtained from landing records and logbooks from ten FEDECOOP cooperatives for the 2013/14, 2014/15, and 2016/2017 lobster fishing seasons. NR: Not Reported. Reproduced from SCS 2016 and Ramade-Villanueva et al. 2015; 2017.

2013/14 2014/15 2015/2016 2016/17 Common Name / Local Common % of Volume (kg) Volume (kg) % of bait Volume (kg) % of bait Volume (kg) % of bait Name Bait “Sardines”- sardina Small Pelagics 2,513,435 65% 1,898,139 53% (Purchased in Ensenada) 2,758,628 98.6% 2,999,389 95.8% “Sardines” - sardina Small Pelagics 1,210,376 31% 1,553,023 43% (Local) ocean whitefish/ blanco 39,596 1% NR* - NR* - NR - Fish/ Pescado o carnada NR - 59,294 2% 23,978 0.9% 20,434 0. 7% Mackerel/ macarela 39,460 1% 57,805 2% 4,500 0.2% 51,327 1.6% California sheephead/ vieja 3,869 0% NR* 0% NR* - NR - Bonito 15,825 0% 5,078 0% 10,551 0.4% 22,111 0.7% Sea Bass 43,298 1% NR* - NR* - NR - Skipjack/ barrilete 2,000 0% 295 0% NR* - 27,000 0.9% Others 17,319 0% NR - NR* - NR - Squid/ calamar NR - 633 0% NR* - NR - Waste/ Carcajes NR 0% 3,308 0% NR* - NR - Barred sand bass / cabrilla or verdillo NR - NR - NR* - 4,685 0.1% / mejillon NR - NR - NR* - 4,760 0.2% Churi NR - NR - NR* - 1,641 0.1% Total volume bait (kg) 3,885,178 - 3,577,575 - 2,797,657 - 3,131,347 - *It is likely that these data were grouped under the category “fish”.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 2 The client did not provide evidence of species-level documentation of the composition of species reflected as ‘sardine’ in the fishery documentation. The assessment team revisited the challenges in providing species-level information on small pelagics being purchased, as well as the rationale for the MSC requirement to do so. The Cooperative representatives agreed it was feasible to provide more detailed information on small pelagic species caught by client group fishers to be used as bait, though the relative proportion of the fishery-caught versus purchased bait will vary significantly year-to-year. INAPESCA noted that there is some species-level data recorded as part of the muestra masiva conducted annually that could be presented to provide annual information on the species being used as bait in the fishery, and José Julián Castro González of INAPESCA further noted the potential availability of detailed landings records. Neither of these additional sources of data were available in the timelines for the surveillance audit. Mr. Ramade of FEDECOOP was able to provide regional production statistics for Baja California identifying the landings of three small pelagics species (anchoveta, macarela, and sardina) from 2013- 2017 in the region.

The regional landings data from CONAPESCA underscores the importance of fishery-specific information on small pelagics bait, both purchased and caught. The proportionally high volume of bait used relative to the catch of the target species (and other non-target species) is such that a species that comprises as little as 7% of the group called ‘sardines’ may qualify as ‘main’ for the fishery overall (i.e. comprise >5% of the total fishery catch by weight). If the below total proportional distribution of small pelagics is representative of the species that comprise the ‘sardine’ categorization in fishery data, then anchoveta should also be considered a ‘main’ species for the purposes of scoring.

Table 8. Baja California monthly fishery production statistics, 2013-2017 (t). Source: Agriculture and Fishery Information Service (SIAP), with information from CONAPESCA.

Species 2013 2014 2015* 2016 2017 Total %

Anchoveta 2,715.73 538.83 29,233.91 5,589.69 10,631.71 12% Macarela 326.5 974.52 1,219.26 9,962.59 786.39 3% Sardina 57,515.16 90,396.02 41,997.01 74,244.40 77,320.02 85% *note that extremely high landings of anchoveta in 2015 skew the overall percentage of anchoveta significantly. When the year 2015 is removed, anchoveta comprise closer to 7% of the total catch of the three species.

The assessment team has determined that this information does not merit a reclassification of anchoveta as main at this first annual surveillance because a) these are region wide statistics that may not reflect catches where the fishery operates, b) mackerel is recognized as a separate category for bycatch reporting suggesting that there is some distinguishing between the small pelagics species (Table 8), and c) fishery technicians report a species-specific preference for Pacific sardine. It is therefore believed that Pacific sardine still comprise the vast majority of bait caught and purchased, though it is acknowledged that purchases and captured species may include other species such as those listed above, and that more detailed information is necessary to confirm the actual composition of small pelagics species used as bait.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 3 3.1.3.2 Bycatch

The re-assessment audit team considered that none of the reported bycatch species approached the 5% volume threshold for classification as ‘main’ non-target species. An update to non-finfish bycatch reported in the re-assessment is provided below that continues to support this conclusion. In response to Condition 2-2, bycatch is now reported in weight (kg) instead of numbers, in order to facilitate the calculation of the catch composition by weight. Each cooperative is responsible for establishing an average weight per species, based on local sampling. With this change, no trends in bycatch can be directly evaluated, but catch by weight totals confirm the full assessment’s conclusion that the non- target species catch comprises a very low proportion of the total fishery catch (Table 6). Table 9. Records of incidental catch by species or species group in kilograms from logbook records. NR: Not reported. Source: Ramade-Villanueva et al. 2017.

Common name (species/group of 2015/16 2016/17 Scientific name species)1 (kg) (kg) Horn Shark / Perro Heterodontus francisci 4,921 6,577 / Gata Cephaloscyllium ventriosum 3,880 5,755 Moray eels/ anguila Gymnothorax sp. 1,184 2,781 Octopus/ pulpo Octopus vulgaris; O. bimaculoides 8,764 8,716 Sea cucumber/ pepino Parastichopus parvimensis 1 2 Sea birds (Cormorant) / cormoranes Phalacrocorax sp. 5 3 / cangrejo Cancer spp. (mainly) 9,934 9,746 Finfishes/ escama See below2 16,156 24,007 Kelletia kelleti; Megastronea spp; Mollusks/ Moluscos 390 390 Haliotis spp Total 45,240 57,977 1Tropical lobster catch estimated separately. See Table 6. 2 Finfishes include small volumes of the following species: Semicossyphus pulcher, Paralabrax clathratus y P. nebulifer, Embiotoca jacksoni, Ophiodon elongates, Seriola lalandi, Hypspops rubicundus, Paralichthys spp Argyrosomus regius, -, Umbrina roncado, Caulolatilus prínceps, Anisotremus davidsoni, Sebastes mystinus, S. miniatus & S. caurinus

3.1.3.2.1 Sharks

There are two species of sharks with vulnerable life story traits, horn sharks (Heterodontus francisci) and swell sharks (Cephaloscyllium ventriosum), with consistent records of capture. The stock status for both of these shark species in the UoA waters is uncertain, however, SCS considers that neither element trigger the RBF. Per CRV1.3 Table AC21, the RBF is triggered for bycatch species if “the impact of the fishery in assessment [cannot] be determined quantitatively”. As noted above, the fishery’s catch of swell and horn sharks is quantitatively available, and these numbers are quite low. Further, the mortalities reported are likely a significant overstatement, because the assessment team understands

1 Note that the MSC confirmed that the RBF trigger table is intended to remain with the version of the assessment tree via an interpretation posted on October 31, 2017, available at: http://msc-info.accreditation- services.com/questions/triggers-for-using-version-1-3-risk-based-framework/

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 4 anecdotally that sharks are typically released alive (further evidence of this provided at the first annual surveillance audit discussed below). Based on this, horn and swell sharks, though data deficient, do not trigger application of the RBF.

There are no explicit legal protections for these shark species, as neither of these two shark species is included in NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 for protected species. NOM-029-PESC (2006) specifies regulations to promote responsible fishing of sharks and rays, including required retention of all shark individuals and prohibits exclusive use or landing of fins without bodies on board (Section 4.1.1). NOM- 029 lists specific species for which clause 4.1.1 does not apply and zero retention is permitted, but these species are not among those listed.

In October 2017 Mr. Ramade submitted a video demonstrating live release of sharks in the UoA, and where the logbooks provided to the assessment team reported post-release status, the status was either recorded as released or alive, presumably indicating both. The overall low volumes of encounters reported, and evidence that most sharks are successfully released alive, is sufficient to conclude that the fishery’s impact on these species would be very low. However, FEDECOOP members also reported that there is some market for these shark species, and therefore recording fate remains important. Further, the assessment team requested that the client provide a summary of not only total volumes, but also volumes by fate, for each of these shark species at the 2nd annual surveillance audit.

3.2 Updates on the management system and regulations

A management plan was drafted in 2012, with the latest version dated April 2014 (Vega-Velázquez et al., 2014) but at the time of the 2nd re-assessment in 2016 had not yet been approved for publication in the official gazette (Diario Oficial, DOF). The plan has not been published yet at the time of the first surveillance audit and there was no new information that could indicate with certainty whether the plan will be published in the near future, though this remains the expressed objective of INAPESCA representatives.

There have been no other changes in the structure or operations of the management system. There have been changes in regulations in the area of the UoA (see below).

3.2.1 Harvest Strategy and Control Rule

Overall, the fishery operates under two broad regulatory mechanisms: a) limited access granting concessions that can last up to 20 years and are renewable; and b) “traditional” regulatory tools such as minimum size, temporal closures and protection of berried females. The red rock lobster fishery of Baja California has operated under the application of traditional passive management strategies such as minimum legal size and protection of egg bearing females. There are season closures that are established in relation to the reproductive activity of the lobster in different regions, but it is not related to a strategy to control fishing mortality. For this reason, there are no binding documents with explicit, pre-agreed harvest control rules that are designed to reduce effort in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points. The lobster chapter in the Red Book (Vega-Velázquez

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 5 2006) however declared that if 퐸푠푡 = 퐵푡퐴푐푡푢푎푙⁄퐵푀푆푌 “stock status is determined according to the following decision rule:” Table 10. Decision Rule to Estimate the Stock Status. Source: Camacho-Barno et al. (2017)

Status Strategy Action <1 Status I: The stock is below Recovery strategy required - Reduce effort optimum level - Reduce F - Adjust legal minimum size - Adjust length of fishing season - Establish no-fishing areas - Catch quota - Restock - Habitat enhancement >1 Status II: The stock is Fishery with further Increase effort and/or catch above optimum level development potential quota =1 Status III: The stock is at The fishery is at the adequate Continue management system optimum level level

The harvesting level for the following season is based on the analysis of the last five fishing seasons taking into account stock size, biological, economic indicators and all other recommendations by INAPESCA. This information is used to determine if it is necessary to modify the number of boats, gear or fishers that will be permitted to participate in the fishing season. Season closures are defined after technical consultations with INAPESCA (and published in the Official Gazette). The closures are determined by zones and the client group is located in zone 1 where closures are from February 16th to September 15th (DOF 2014).

Results of the assessment after season 2016/17 indicate that the fishery is above optimum level. At the time of the first surveillance audit, the control rule has been added with proposed actions for each state of the fishery (Table 10), but is not yet a binding procedure and lacks mechanisms to its application. In order to meet the MSC requirements for a control rule, the limit and target reference points must be unequivocally identified and the control rule must operate based on such reference points. Also, there must be a clear description of the actions, providing a quantitative or otherwise well-supported rationale for how these actions will work to prevent the stock from reaching the defined LRP.

3.2.2 Establishment of a New Marine Reserve

On December 7, 2016, a new protected area was created, named the “Reserva de la Biosfera la región conocida como Islas del Pacifico de la Península de Baja California”. The reserve includes 21 islands, 97 islets and their adjacent waters. The reserve consists of a main zone and a buffer zone. In the buffer zone (zona de amortiguamiento), subsistance resource extraction is permitted, such as fishing with small vessels and native species aquaculture. Commercial and recreational fishing can only be undertaken by local communities, or with their participation on vessels of <10.5m in length. Use of fishing techniques

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 6 that affect the seabed are prohibited (trap lobster fishing is not considered a fishing technique detrimental to the seabed and is thus permitted).

Figure 7. Map of the Reserva de la Biosfera la región conocida como Islas del Pacifico de la Península de Baja California. Provided by FEDECOOP.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 7 3.2.3 Prohibition of Retention of Lobster by Trawlers FEDECOOP indicated that in the last three to five years there was an increase in the abundance of leading to an increment in the presence of shrimp trawlers. This situation was of concern because lobster was being caught as bycatch in the shrimp fishery. FEDECOOP sought to increase the range of extension of the marine portion in the Vizcaino protected area, however, before that negotiation progressed, the Pacific Islands Reserve was established (see above) which prohibits the retention of lobster. Shrimp trawlers are no longer allowed inside the protected area. Additionally, lobsters incidentally caught in the shrimp fishery in the neighborhood must be released in the location where caught. Shrimp trawlers are no longer fishing inside the now protected areas.

3.3 Updates on Personnel involved in science, management or industry

FEDECOOP appointed the former financial advisor, Mr. Francisco, as President of the Federation. There have been no other significant changes of personnel in the management system.

3.4 Changes to the fishing operations and traceability systems

Not applicable. There have been no material changes to the fishing operations or traceability system.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 8 4 Assessment Process

4.1 Assessment Methodologies

Table 11. Scheme Documents

MSC Scheme Document Issue Date MSC Certification Requirements and Guidance v1.3 (Tree) January 2013 MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0 (Process) October 2014 General Certification Requirements v2.1 February 2015 Surveillance Reporting Template v1.0 April 2015

Table 12. Schedule of surveillance audits.

Surveillance Level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level 6 (Normal On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance Surveillance) audit audit audit audit & re- certification site visit

The surveillance audit was carried out in accordance with the default assessment tree of the MSC Certification Requirements (CR) v1.3, under which the fishery was most recently certified. Following the MSC guidelines for implementation timeframes, the surveillance was conducted in accordance with the new process requirements in FCR v2.0.

The issues for the certifier, in addition to checking progress against conditions to close out, is to determine whether a random check on the performance of the fishery verifies continued compliance with the MSC standards and to document the most recent research, landings, and survey trends relating to the fishery.

The annual surveillance audit process is comprised of five general parts: 1. The certification body provides questions around areas of inquiry to determine if the fishery is maintaining the level of management observed during the original certification. 2. The certification body informs stakeholders that they have the opportunity to contribute to the surveillance audit by participating in a face‐to‐face interview process or by submitting comments in writing. The certification body must inform stakeholders of the opportunity to provide comment at least 30 days before the onsite meeting. 3. The surveillance assessment team meets with the fishery client in an opening meeting to allow the client to present the information gathered and to answer questions asked by the surveillance team. The surveillance team can then ask questions about the information provided to ensure full understanding of how well the fishery management system is functioning and if the fishery management system is continuing to meet the MSC standards. Additional interviews are conducted of fishery management and science personnel as well as stakeholders.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 9 4. The surveillance team determines if any PIs should be re-scored and presents its findings to the client fishery at the end of the site visit in a closing meeting. The results outline the assessment team’s understanding of the information presented and its conclusion regarding the fishery management system’s continued compliance with MSC standards. 5. The surveillance team submits a final report to the client and to MSC for posting on the MSC website. If there are continued compliance concerns, these are presented as non‐ conformances that require further action and audits as specified in the surveillance report.

4.2 Consultations

SCS identified relevant stakeholders for this fishery through professional networks of SCS and the assessment team, as well as know-how of the organizations working in the area. A list of over 100 individuals from over 40 different organizations was compiled including representatives from the government, private sector and non-profit sectors working at regional and national levels (Table 13). The main form of communication to stakeholders has been via email to personal or organizational email addresses. Stakeholders on the list received an email with the surveillance announcement, the MSC stakeholder template to provide input and an invitation to participate in the onsite meeting.

No stakeholders submitted comments or expressed interest in participating in the onsite meeting within the 30-day consultation period. No stakeholders requested a private meeting with the team.

The announcement of the surveillance audit included the dates and location for the onsite meeting, which took place in Ensenada Monday and Tuesday, December 4-5, 2017. The announcement was published to the MSC website on November 1, 2017. Stakeholders were informed of the announcements through the MSC website and through email.

An audit plan was provided to the client for distribution to all audit attendees before the meeting.

At the onsite meeting the assessment team met with representatives from management agencies, research institutions and the client group, for details see Table 14 and Table 15. Table 13. List of stakeholder organizations contacted for the MSC Assessment

Organization Type CICIMAR Research CICIMAR - IPN Research Instituto Nacional de Pesca/ CRIP – Mazatlan & Ensenada Government Scripps Institution of Oceanography Research Cause Natura A.C Contraloria Ciudadana para la Rendicion de Cuentas A.C American Bird Conservancy NGO Autonomous Univ of Baja Research Center for Biological Diversity NGO CIBNOR Research COBI NGO

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 10 Comision Nacional de Areas Naturales Government CONANP Government CONANPESCA Government Consejo Asesor del Conjunto de Areas Naturales Government Protegidas Federales Conservacion de Islas NGO Conservation International - Mexico NGO EDF NGO Greenpeace NGO Humane Society International NGO INAPESCA Government Marine Conservation Society NGO Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Natural Resources Defense Council NGO NIPARAJA NGO NOS Noroeste Sustenable NGO Ocean Conservancy NGO Oceana NGO PEW NGO Prescott College Bahia Kino in Sonora Research Univsidad Autonoma de Sinaloa Research PRONATURA NGO SEMARNAT Government Sustainable Fisheries Partnership NGO The Nature Conservancy NGO Turtle is Rest Net NGO UC Riverside Research University of Veracruz Research WildCoast NGO WWF Mexico NGO FEDECOOP Industry

Table 14. Onsite Meeting Attendees

Name Affiliation Carlos Alvarez-Flores SCS Global Services Jennifer Humberstone SCS Global Services Lourdes Ramirez Coop. California de San Ignacio Francisco J. Rousseau FEDECOOP Ignacio Espinoza Liena Coop. Emancipacion J. Domingo Aguilar Progreso Mario Guerrero Madriles CONANP RBIPPBC Alberto Cantu Ruiz CONANP RBIPPBC Gustavo Villavicencio Coop. Leyes de Reforma Jesus Espinoza Coop. California de San Ignacio Beniqno Hernández CRIP- Ensenada Armando Vega Bolaños CRIP- La Paz (INAPESCA)

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 11 Edgardo Camacho INAPESCA CRIP- La Paz Gabriel Jimenez CRIP- La Paz Ramon Martinez Coop. Bozos y Pescadores Angel Ruiz CONANP/RBIPPBC Juan Osuna Coop. Progreso Eduardo Enriquez Coop. Punta Abreojos Julian Gonzalez INAPESCA CRIP-EDA Gabriel Llanos INAPESCA CRIP – La Paz Carmina Salinasi Coop. Emancipacion Juan Carlos Bonilla Coop. La Purísima Carmina Salinas Ivan Coop. Emancipación Mario Ramade Villanueva FEDECOOP Armando Vega Velazquez INAPESCA Pedro Sierra Rodriguez INAPESCA

Table 15. Summary of Meetings. All meetings held at the FEDECOOP office in Ensenada, Mexico.

Day 1 – December 4, 2017 8:00am – 9:00am Opening presentation for MSC surveillance by SCS team, including the scope of the audit: 1- Review updates to the fishery since certification 2- Review progress on open conditions 9:00am – 1:00pm Progress on Conditions 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, & 3-1 & 3-2 presented by Armando Vega and INAPESCA TEAM

1:00pm – 3:00pm Break/Lunch 3:00pm – 4:00pm Review of updates to the fishery since certification, by Mario Ramade and Technical representative

4:00am – 5:00 pm Progress on Conditions 2-1 & 2-2, presented by Mario Ramade, Technical representative and CONAPESCA TEAM Day 2 – December 5, 2017 8:30am – 9:00 am Opening meeting regarding MSC process by SCS team 9:00am-12:00pm Closing Meeting presented by SCS team

12:00pm – 1:00pm FEDECOOP and INAPESCA follow-up meeting to plan for 2018 actions to meet conditions (see Appendix 3: Section 7.3.2)

4.3 Harmonization Considerations

Harmonization considerations were not applicable to this surveillance audit. There is only an overlap between this fishery in terms of national level management (PIs 3.1.X), and there are no open conditions pertaining to these PIs, nor did the assessment team learn of new information material to those scores.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 12 4.4 Assessment Team The surveillance team consisted of Dr. Carlos M. Alvarez-Flores and Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone. Dr. Alvarez-Flores was the team lead (responsible for Principles 1 & 3), and Mrs. Humberstone was the staff coordinator and team member responsible for Principle 2. Assessment team experience and qualification summaries were provided in the assessment announcement and can be found below:

Dr. Carlos Alvarez-Flores Dr. Carlos Alvarez-Flores was born in Mexico City and obtained Bachelors of Science and Master of Science degrees at the National University of Mexico. He later moved to Seattle, USA to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy degree at the School of Fisheries of the University of Washington. His research interests are focused on the management and conservation of wildlife and fisheries. This includes abundance estimation; assessment of population status; estimation of population parameters; the effect of human intervention; direct harvest; bycatch and associated environmental effects; projections based on biological potential; population viability; risk assessment; design of alternative management strategies. His training was related to large, pelagic, data rich fisheries, and some of his investigations involved the bycatch of dolphins in the pelagic purse seine tuna fisheries of the Eastern Tropical Pacific, the hunt of beluga whales in West Greenland, the hunt of bowhead whales in Canada, the bycatch of albatrosses in pelagic fisheries of the central Pacific. In contrast, his current assignments are related to small-scale, coastal fisheries that are very data poor. Therefore, his present challenges are to combine ideas, techniques, knowledge and experience to improve the performance of these problematic fisheries in developing countries. Most of his experience has been focused on practical investigations applied to population and fishery assessment and management as a consultant for governments, NGOs and the private sector of different countries. To the present, he has worked for SCS for over two years in MSC pre-assessments, assessments and surveillance audits of different types of fisheries in different countries, including full assessments of small pelagic sardine and thread herring fisheries in the Northern and Southern .

Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone Jennifer Humberstone holds a Master of Environmental Science and Management degree from the Bren School at the University of California Santa Barbara, where she specialized in fisheries management and natural resource economics. Jennifer has designed spatial bio-economic models to facilitate management decisions and performed research for the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. Mrs. Humberstone has cross-sectoral and international project management experiences working with diverse stakeholders including fishers, government, private industry, and NGOs. Jennifer is proficient in Spanish and has marine resource management field experience in both the Philippines and the Dominican Republic: where she spent over two years building initiatives in protected areas, ecotourism, and fisheries management. She has over 4 years of scientific diving field experience. Jennifer is an ISO 9001 lead auditor and has completed the MSC V2.0 Team Leader training modules, including the SAM-FAM and Traceability modules. In her role at SCS, she is currently participating in and/or coordinating the MSC pre-assessment, surveillance audits, and full assessment of fisheries worldwide, including several fisheries in the Americas and numerous fisheries.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 13 5 Results

The tables below summarize open conditions, including corresponding rationale, associated milestones, Client Action Plan (CAP), and current progress.

In discussing the status of progress on conditions at the first annual surveillance, the client and assessment team discussed critical CAP components, and necessary remedial actions (per FCRV2.0 7.23.13.1.b.i) for four conditions that were deemed ‘behind target’. At the second annual surveillance audit, the client is expected to provide evidence of fulfilment of the remedial action requirements, in addition to evidence of progress against the Year 2 milestone.

Immediately following the closing meeting the onsite attendees convened to discuss actions to be undertaken in 2018 to bring the fishery back on target and remain in compliance with the MSC Standard. Minutes from this meeting are available in Appendix 3: Section 7.3.2 (in Spanish).

One condition was closed based on progress demonstrated (Condition 3-1). A revised rationale for PI 3.2.4 is therefore provided in Appendix 1. A revised rationale is also provided for PI 2.2.1 that explains the consideration of swell and horn sharks in support of the full assessment team’s conclusion that the species did not require application of the Risk Based Framework.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 14 Table 16. Condition 1-1

PI 1.1.2 (b) 75 Performance The limit reference point is set above Indicator(s) & Limit and target reference the level at which there is an Score(s) points are appropriate for appreciable risk of impairing the stock. reproductive capacity. Define explicit reference points that are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. Condition The Limit Reference Point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The Target Reference Point works to maintain the stock at a level consistent with Bmsy or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, appropriate reference points have been identified and initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started. 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, appropriate reference have been discussed and accepted by the community. The process to formalize the publication of the Milestones reference points has started.

3. Surveillance 3 (2019): By the third year, the reference points have been published in the official gazette and are ready to be used in the following fishing season. 4. Surveillance 4 (2020): By the fourth year the reference points are defined and operate according to the requirements of PI 1.1.2. - Review biological aspects that determine lobster population dynamics. Client action plan - Identify biomass levels that could cause recruitment to be compromised. (Year 1 only) - Identify fishing mortality levels that produce MSY. - Conduct a workshop to consult with fishers and experts if the identified reference points are appropriate for the stock and the fishery. - Initial simulation testing is conducted. Achievements against action plan - Review biological aspects that determine lobster population dynamics. (Y) - Identify biomass levels that could cause recruitment to be compromised. (N) - Identify fishing mortality levels that produce MSY. (Y) - Conduct a workshop to consult with fishers and experts if the identified reference points are appropriate for the stock and the fishery. (N) - Initial simulation testing is conducted. Progress on (N) Condition [Year 1] Finding Some level of information has been produced in the most recent stock assessment (Camacho-Bareño et al 2017), however, the analysis still considered the MSY the only reference point for decision making without specification of whether it was a target or limit reference point. There was therefore, no identification of appropriate reference points as required in the CR CB2.3. No initial testing was therefore possible. Noticing that this portion of the action plan was not conducted, at the end of the audit, participants convened a meeting to set up a plan to meet and discuss this and other issues that require attention according to the action plan. Meeting minutes are included in Appendix 3 (Report Section 7.3.2).

Status of condition Behind target.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 15

Remedial actions (specified per MSC FCRv2.0 7.23.13.1.b.i) Within 12 months, elaborate a plan to identify, discuss and test reference points. After an initial proposition and testing, a single workshop can be conducted to get feedback towards the final definition of the reference points.

Table 17. Condition 1-2

PI 1.2.2 (a) 65 Performance Well defined harvest control rules are Indicator(s) & There are well defined in place that are consistent with the Score(s) and effective harvest harvest strategy and ensure that the control rules in place. exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The harvest control rule must be pre-agreed, well defined and in place; it must be Condition consistent with the harvest strategy to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the

limit reference point is approached. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, the harvest control rule is proposed and initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started. 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, the harvest control rule has been pre-agreed and is well defined. The rule has been discussed and accepted by the community. The Milestones process to formalize the publication of the control rule has started. 3. Surveillance 3 (2019): By the third year, the harvest control rule is pre-agreed, published in the official gazette and is ready to be used in the following fishing season in parallel with the reference points. 4. Surveillance 4 (2020): By the fourth year the harvest control rule is well defined, in place and operating according to the requirements of PI 1.2.2. Client action plan - Conduct a workshop to consult with fishers and experts if the identified harvest (Year 1 only) control rules are appropriate for to maintain or reach the reference points. - Initial simulation testing is conducted.

Achievements against action plan - Conduct a workshop to consult with fishers and experts if the identified harvest control rules are appropriate for to maintain or reach the reference points. (N) - Initial simulation testing is conducted. (N) Finding The last stock assessment report (Camacho-Bareno et al 2017) modified the structure of the control rule presented in the Fisheries Management Plan (Vega-Velazquez et al. 2014). The changes include possible actions to implement the strategy associated with the status Progress on estimated using the original equation. The status variable in the decision rule is the ratio of Condition [Year 1] the current biomass to one half the pre-exploitation level of biomass, which is assumed to produce MSY. Because there are no explicit definitions of reference points, there are no clear expectations as to whether the Bmsy is a target or a limit. Therefore, the operation of the control rule is uncertain and incomplete because in its present form it cannot “reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached” as required in the CR Table CB5 PI1.2.2, SIs at SG80.

The client is advised to refer to the Guidance to the CR, Section GCB2.6, but in particular to keep in mind that the basic requirement for the HCR is that it has to reduce the exploitation rates as the limit reference point is approached. In other words, the rule must be aimed to

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 16 keep the stock above the limit reference point and should attempt to maintain the stock at or around the reference point. With this in mind, the control rule cannot be considered well defined if alternative courses of action are not accompanied with a clear and explicit definition of the specific circumstances that will make the manager follow one alternative or the other and how the action will reduce the exploitation rate to achieve its goal. To complement this description, the proposed actions also require a more detailed description of how they would be implemented, including decision-making, communication to fishers, and monitoring of implementation and effectiveness.

Behind target.

Remedial actions (specified per MSC FCRv2.0 7.23.13.1.b.i) Within 12 months, elaborate a plan to produce a formal definition of reference points that are consistent with the definitions in the MSC Certification Requirements. Also, develop a Status of condition strategy with explicit instructions about how the control rule would operate under such definitions. After an initial proposition and testing, a single workshop can be conducted to get feedback towards the final definition of the control rule, this workshop can also serve to discuss how decisions resulting from the use of the control rule can be implemented.

Table 18. Condition 1-3

PI 1.2.2 (b) 65 Performance Indicator(s) & There are well defined The selection of the harvest control Score(s) and effective harvest rules must take into account the main control rules in place. uncertainties. The harvest control rule must be pre-agreed, well defined and in place; it must be Condition consistent with the harvest strategy to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the

limit reference point is approached. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, the main sources of uncertainty affecting the performance of the HCR have been identified and a basic analytical structure has been outlined. Some initial testing has taken place. 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, analyses have been completed and the main uncertainties have been accounted for in the performance of the HCR. The new or revised HCR is incorporated in the regulations and the process to formalize its Milestones publication in the official gazette has started.

2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, an evaluation model is implemented and some testing is conducted. 3. Surveillance 3 (2019): By the third year, analyses have been completed and the main uncertainties have been accounted for in the performance of the HCR. 4. Surveillance 4 (2020): By the fourth year, the new or revised HCR includes the main uncertainties and is incorporated in the regulations. Condition closed. Client action plan - Annual meeting to evaluate the stock status, the reference points and the HCR, (Year 1 only) testing some simulation methods including uncertainty.

Achievements against action plan - Annual meeting to evaluate the stock status, the reference points and the HCR, testing some simulation methods including uncertainty. Progress on (N) Condition [Year 1] Finding The main uncertainties have not been identified yet and no proposition of how to insert them in the stock assessment has been presented. See progress on conditions 1-1 and 1-2

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 17 for a summary of the actions taken to date relative to the definition of reference points and the HCR. The team considered that a prerequisite level of development of the HCR is necessary for the fulfillment of this condition’s requirements, such that some progress on conditions 1-1 and 1-2 are necessary to achieve material progress on this condition. On this basis, the surveillance team considered that initial timeline for these milestones may have provided insufficient consideration of this dependency and were unrealistic. There was an agreement to revise the timeline and indicated in the revised milestones above to better align with the actions as laid out in Conditions 1.1 and 1.2.

Behind target.

Remedial actions (specified per MSC FCRv2.0 7.23.13.1.b.i) Within 12 months, identify sources of uncertainty and start developing a simulation framework for testing. The client is advised to observe the following content in the Guidance to the CR in GCB2.6 “The requirement that the control rules and/or management Status of condition actions are designed to take into account uncertainty can be supported by testing. Testing can include the use of experience from analogous fisheries, empirical testing (for example practical experience of performance or evidence of past performance) and simulation testing (for instance using computer-intensive modelling such as MSE)”.

Table 19. Condition 2-1

PI 2.1.3 (d) 75 Information on the nature and extent of retained Sufficient data continue to be Performance species is adequate to collected to detect any increase in risk Indicator(s) & determine the risk posed level (e.g. due to changes in the

Score(s) by the fishery and the outcome indicator score or the effectiveness of the operation of the fishery or the strategy to manage effectiveness of the strategy) retained species By the second surveillance provide information at the species level that is adequate to Condition detect any increase in risk level due changes in the outcome indicator score or the

operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the partial strategy in place. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year information is being collected on bait/retained species with sufficient level of accuracy. Milestones 1. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents information at the species level on the volume and origin of bait and other retained species in this fishery. - At this stage FEDECOOP, with the support of INAPESCA, will start a program for taxonomic identification of all retained and baits species. A control will be put in Client action plan place to implement that record the volume and source of the bait used. (Year 1 only) - By the first surveillance the client will provide evidence that bait data collection is being collected for the first year. This will include a list of bait species with scientific names preliminary data on volumes and evidence that the monitoring system has been improved. Progress on Achievements against action plan. Condition [Year 1]

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 18 - At this stage FEDECOOP with the support of INAPESCA will start a program for taxonomic identification of all retained and baits species. (N) - A control will be put in place to implement that record the volume and source of the bait used. (N) - By the first surveillance the client will provide evidence that bait data collection is being collected for the first year. (N) - This will include a list of bait species with scientific names preliminary data on volumes and evidence that the monitoring system has been improved. (N)

Finding 2. The client presented a summary of bait used by the UoA that included volume and common names (versus scientific names). The data did not differentiate between the bait purchased in Ensenada versus caught by UoA fishers. The client group noted that while it is feasible to provide more detailed records of bait caught by UoA fishers, it is not feasible to identify in more detail the composition of species purchased in Ensenada (because the fish come in mass frozen blocks and are not identified in detail beyond ‘sardine’ in accompanying paperwork). The fishery considers that almost all bait is ‘sardina monterey’ (Pacific sardine), and that several other small pelagic species would be undesirable to use as bait and are avoided. 3. 4. In order to characterize Ensenada bait species composition, regional production statistics for small pelagics were recognized as useful as a potential proxy. Landings of small pelagics species (sardina, macarela, and anchoveta) were found to be available online, and landings for the last 5 years were provided (see Table 8). The assessment team notes that this landings data suggests that anchoveta may in some years comprise a significant proportion of landings in Baja California, such that if the same relative small pelagics species composition applies to the bait used in the UoA (classified as ‘sardina’ by the UoA), anchoveta may qualify as ‘main’. This is because bait comprises such a large proportion of the overall catch by weight in the fishery, and ‘sardines’ consistently represent the vast majority of bait used by the UoA. Because Baja-wide landings from CONAPESCA are not fishery-specific data and thus cannot be directly extrapolated as representative of bait caught and purchased by the UoA, fishery technicians assert that there is a preference for Pacific sardine for use as bait over other small pelagics species, and because there is some evidence of differentiation of small pelagics species (i.e. mackerel) in the bait data provided by FEDECOOP (Table 7), the assessment team does not consider a reclassification of anchoveta as ‘main’ merited at this stage. However, the inter-annual variability demonstrated in Table 8 underscores the importance of provision of improved information on bait species caught and purchased by the UoA. 5. 6. INAPESCA suggested that the data collected via their “muestra massiva” may be useful, as this includes a characterization of bait used by the fishers. INAPESCA staff have not put efforts into formalizing this data as it has not been an area of management focus historically, but report they could likely produce a summary table of species-specific bait data in the future. In addition, there may be more detailed information on the small pelagics fishery landings that could provide for

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 19 additional information on small pelagics catch composition of the bait purchased from distributors by the UoA (J. Castro, pers. Comm). In a post-audit meeting in which the on-site meeting attendees discussed plans to meet the remedial actions, the participants agreed to revise the logbook form (bitácora de pesca) to record more detailed information as required by conditions 2-1 and 2-2. See Appendix 3 (Report Section 7.3.2).

Behind target.

Remedial actions (specified per MSC FCRv2.0 7.23.13.1.b.i) 7. Within 12 months, or prior to the second annual surveillance audit, the assessment team expects a report on bait that includes the following information: . characterization of all bait that distinguishes bait purchased versus captured by the UoA, with volumes by month. This should include all species used for bait. Status of condition . Species-specific characterization of the bait categorized as ‘sardina’. There are several alternatives discussed during this audit that may achieve this objective, that the client may consider using in concert: o more detailed species-specific reporting of bait captured by UoA fishers for use in the fishery o use of small pelagics production statistics to characterize the proportional composition of small pelagics in the area. o use of data from the ‘muestra massiva’ from INAPESCA to characterize bait use by species

Table 20. Condition 2-2

PI 2.2.3 (b,c) 70 Information on the nature and the amount of Information is sufficient to estimate Performance bycatch is adequate to outcome status with respect to Indicator(s) & determine the risk posed biologically based limits; Information

Score(s) by the fishery and the is adequate to support a partial effectiveness of the strategy to manage main bycatch strategy to manage species. bycatch By the third surveillance, provide accurate information at the species level on the Condition volume (weight) of bycatch species in this fishery, information and evidence of end use

of sharks and other bycatch species. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, data collection of bycatch species with Milestones logbooks has been improved. This includes the annotation of the type and number of sharks captured and a comment on whether they were retained or discarded dead or released alive.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 20 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents evidence that information of bycatch species is being systematically collected and analyzed. - At this stage FEDECOOP with the support of INAPESCA will identify all bycatch species, including sharks, fish and and will start to record volume of Client action plan bycatch species in each of the concession areas of the SCPP within the unit of (Year 1 only) assessment.

- Report of bycatch species during the lobster season 2017/18.

Achievements against action plan. - At this stage FEDECOOP with the support of INAPESCA will identify all bycatch species, including sharks, fish and invertebrates and will start to record volume of bycatch species in each of the concession areas of the SCPP within the unit of assessment. (Y) - Report of bycatch species during the lobster season 2017/18 (Y)

Finding 8. FEDECOOP provided a summary of incidentally captured species that included scientific names, and weights (rather than numbers). The team was also provided with a video demonstrating live release of sharks, and records of logbooks from 6 cooperatives, though not all cooperatives appear to be recording bycatch species encountered or the end use and status of sharks. The assessment team also noted that the format of the logbooks was not uniform across all cooperatives, which may contribute to inconsistency in reporting. 9. 10. The assessment team considers this condition on target on the basis of the improvements in reporting to the species level and by weight. However, there Progress on are aspects of the Year 1 milestone that were not completely fulfilled and must Condition [Year 1] be improved in order for the fishery to remain on target and close the condition. By year two the assessment team expects to receive evidence that the monitoring program has continued to improve in its collection of information and in particular that there is improved consistency in reporting across all cooperatives (recording all bycatch and the fate of sharks (retained/discard, live/dead)).

The assessment team reminded the client that for the next annual surveillance, per the client action plan, they expect to receive a summary of data that includes a summarized breakdown with additional detail of fate (retained, released dead, released alive) for sharks in the annual reporting on incidental species interactions, in addition to evidence of reporting by all cooperatives in the form of a sample of logbooks.

In a post-audit meeting in which the on-site meeting attendees discussed plans to meet the 2nd annual audit requirements, the participants agreed to revise the logbook form (bitacora de pesca) to record more detailed information as required by conditions 2-1 and 2-2. See Appendix 3 (Report Section 7.3.2).

Status of condition On target.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 21

Table 21. Condition 3-1

PI 3.2.4 (a) 60 A research plan provides the Performance The fishery has a research management system with a strategic Indicator(s) & plan that addresses the approach to research and reliable and

Score(s) information needs of timely information sufficient to management. achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. A research plan must be developed as a written document that includes a plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring Condition research. The plan must provide the management system with a strategic approach to

research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. 1. Surveillance (2017): By the first year the management plan was published in the official gazette; it´s including the general research program with objectives and Milestones goals in the short, medium and long term. 2. Surveillance (2018): By the second year the client presents evidence of the evaluation of results of the program research and it´s review for updating objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term. Client action plan - Public consultation of the draft of management plan for lobster fishery, to submit (Year 1 only) at CONAPESCA to formalize it. - Annual meeting to discuss at research plan to reach the objectives and conditions of the certification. Achievements against action plan. - Public consultation of the draft of management plan for lobster fishery, to submit at CONAPESCA to formalize it. (NA) - Annual meeting to discuss a research plan to reach the objectives and conditions of the certification. (NA) Finding The main purpose of this Condition is that the fishery has a research program that is described in a formal document has the characteristic outlined in CR CB4.10.3. The client action plan proposed activities that were related to the management plan, in Progress on which a research program may be described in satisfaction with the SG80 criteria, but Condition [Year 1] is not the only avenue through which a satisfactory research plan could be presented. At the first annual surveillance audit, the INAPESCA Regional Center in La Paz provided evidence of a modified their regular Annual Operative Program (POA; INAPESCA 2016) with structure and content that better fits the requirements “a written document that includes a specific research plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research” (CR CB4.10.3).Therefore, the fishery is considered to be in full compliance with PI 3.2.4 SIa at the SG80 level. Conditions are evaluated for conformity against the certification requirements and not the client action plan (See FCRv2.0 7.23.13.1), and therefore, although the actions stipulated in the client’s action plan were not achieved, the condition is considered met and is now closed.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 22 Condition closed. Status of condition

Table 22. Condition 3-2

PI 3.2.4 (b) 60 Performance The fishery has a research Research results are disseminated to Indicator(s) & plan that addresses the all interested parties in a timely Score(s) information needs of fashion. management. Condition Results of research conducted to inform management actions must be disseminated to all parties in a timely fashion. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year Annual meetings between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP are held after each fishing season to discuss results of the analysis of Milestones the fishery. 2. Surveillance 2 (2018). By the second year the client presents evidence of the annual meeting between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP are implemented after each lobster season Client action plan - Annual meeting to evaluate the results of the lobster season 2016/17 (Year 1 only) Achievements against action plan - Annual meeting to evaluate the results of the lobster season 2016/17. (Y) Finding We received a copy of the minutes of the meeting in September where the results of 2016/17 season were presented. INAPESCA and FEDECOOP agreed that the meeting was unusually late for reasons out of their control, and although these meetings usually take place earlier, there was a general sense of satisfaction with the flow of information from research. There are still a few details to improve in the flow of data both from FEDECOOP to INAPESCA and vice versa, but there was a good sense of collaboration between stakeholders. The team agrees that the condition can be Progress on considered to be on target. Condition [Year x]

The fishery was informed that for the next surveillance audit, the team expects to receive information and evidence two weeks in advance of the onsite. The response was that the information can be produced in the technical meeting and submitted so that the onsite can take place in November instead of December (December is not considered a good time for the surveillance audit).

If meetings continue to take place regularly and the flow of information improves as agreed, at the next surveillance audit this condition could be closed. The fishery however is also advised to continue in compliance with this requirement as the team will keep monitoring the appropriate and timely flow of information. On target. Status of condition

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 23 6 References

Camacho-Bareño E., A. Vega-Velázquez, G.A. Jiménez-Llanos and A. Vega-Bolaños. 2017. Evaluación de la pesquería de langosta roja (Panulirus interruptus) en la región centro occidental Península de Baja California (Punta Abreojos a Bahía Vizcaíno): Temporada 2016-2017. Informe de Investigación del Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, Centro Regional de Investigación Acuícola y Pesquera en La Paz y Ensenada. La Paz, Baja California Sur. 59 pp. DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2014. Acuerdo por el que se modifica el similar por el que se establecen las épocas y zonas de veda de la langosta azul (Panulirus inflatus), langosta verde (Panulirus gracilis) y langosta roja, publicado el 31 de agosto de 2005.Miercoles 24 de septiembre de 2014. Primera seccion, pp27-29.

Enciso, C. and C.E. Cotero. 2015. La pesquería de pelágicos menores en la costa occidental de Baja California, temporada de pesca 2014. In XXIII TALLER DE PELAGICOS MENORES. LA PAZ, Baja California Sur, June 10-12, 2015

INAPESCA. 2016. Evaluación y manejo de la pesquería de langosta en la costa occidental de la Península de Baja California, prospección y ordenamiento del recurso en el Golfo de California. Programa operativo anual, recurso langosta. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera La Paz. La Paz, Baja California Sur. 41 pp.

McCay 2014. McCay, B. J., F. Micheli, G. Ponce-Diáz, G. Murray, G. Shester, S. Ramirez-Sanchez, and W. Weisman. 2014. Cooperatives, concessions, and co-management on the Pacific coast of Mexico. Marine Policy 44:49-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.001

Ramade Villanueva Mario, Daniel Romero Arce, Antonio Espinoza Montes, Juan Carlos Bonilla Gutierrez, Ramón García Arce, Carmina Salinas Iván, Claudia Miranda Saucedo, Gustavo Villavicencio Peralta, Domingo Aguilar Osuna, Eduardo Enríquez González. 2017. Reporte de la Temporada Langostera 2016/2017. Federacion Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera “Baja California” F.C.L. 7 pp.

Ramade-Villanueva, M., D. Romero-Arce, A. Espinoza-Montes, J.C. Bonilla-Gutiérrez, R. García-Arce, C. Salinas-Iván, R. Luna-Villalobos, A. Murillo-Cruz, D. Aguilar-Osuna and E. Enríquez-González. 2015. Reporte de la Temporada Langostera 2014/15. Federacion Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera “Baja California” F.C.L. 11 pp.

SCS 2016. Mexico Baja California Red Rock Lobster Fishery: Public Certification Report. SCS Global Services Report for Marine Stewardship Council Certification. Prepared for Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera de Baja California, F.C.L. (FEDECOOP)

Shester, G.G. 2008. Sustainability in small-scale fisheries: an analysis of the ecosystem impacts, fishing behavior and spatial management using participatory research methods. Doctor of Philosophy Degree Thesis. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. September, 2008. 225 pp.

Vega-Velázquez A. 2006. Langosta de la península de Baja California. Pp 155-210. In: Arreguín, S.F., Beléndez M.L., Méndez GH.I.,Solana S.R. & Range, D.C. Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en México: Evaluación y Manejo. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 560 pp.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 24 Vega-Velázquez A., J. Castro-González, A. Vega-Bolaños y R. Sánchez. 2014. Plan de manejo pesquero para las langostas espinosas (Panulirus sp) de la Península de Baja California. Instituto Nacional de Pesca. Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera La Paz. Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera Ensenada. La Paz, Baja California Sur. 140 pp.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 25 7 Appendices

7.1 Appendix 1. Re-scoring evaluation tables (if necessary) Changes to rationales from the initial full assessment are indicated by struck-through deletions and underlined additions.

Table 23. Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of certainty likely to be within highly likely to be within that bycatch species are within biologically based limits biologically based limits biologically based limits. (if not, go to scoring (if not, go to scoring issue

Guidepost issue b below). b below). Met? Not scored Not scored Not scored This fishery has a low volume (weight) of bycatch species. Two shark species are considered ‘main’: horn sharks (Heterodontus francisci) and swell sharks (Cephaloscyllium ventriosum) which are considered vulnerable based on their life history traits (i.e. high age of sexual maturity/low fertility). According to the interviews with the technicians of the cooperatives and the FEDECOOP representative, the sharks are released alive, but the team received no evidence demonstrating that this occurs or quantifying live return rates. Horn sharks (Heterodontus francisci) are classified as “Data Deficient” by the IUCN Red List status, there is no information on population structure, the status of these species is uncertain and biologically based limits are not available. Without sufficient information to assert that this species is likely to be within biological based limits outcome is evaluated under scoring issue b. Swell sharks (Cephaloscyllium ventriosum) are considered to be of “Least Concern” by the IUCN Red List, there is evidence suggesting a single population expanding from California to Chile, and it is considered to be a common species in California and the northern part of the Gulf of California (Villavicencio-Garayzar et al. 2015). However, there is no conclusive information to confirm whether this species is likely within biological based limits, and thus this species is also evaluated in scoring issue b. Despite the uncertainty in the stock status in the UoA area for both of these species, SCS 2 considers that neither element triggers the RBF. Per CRV1.3 Table AC2 , the RBF is triggered for bycatch species if “the impact of the fishery in assessment [cannot] be determined quantitatively”. As noted above, the fishery’s catch of swell and horn sharks is quantitatively available, and these numbers are quite low. Further, the mortalities reported are likely a significant overstatement, because the assessment team understands

Justification anecdotally that sharks are typically released alive (further evidence of this was provided

2 Note that the MSC confirmed that the RBF trigger table is intended to remain with the version of the assessment tree via an interpretation posted on October 31, 2017, available at: http://msc-info.accreditation- services.com/questions/triggers-for-using-version-1-3-risk-based-framework/

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 26 at the first annual surveillance audit). Based on this, horn and swell sharks, though data deficient, do not trigger application of the RBF. B If main bycatch species If main bycatch species are outside biologically are outside biologically based limits there are based limits there is a mitigation measures in partial strategy of

place that are expected demonstrably effective to ensure that the mitigation measures in fishery does not hinder place such that the recovery and rebuilding. fishery does not hinder

Guidepost recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y

There is not sufficient information available for the two shark species (horn and swell sharks) to confirm the species are within biologically based limits. However, there are several measures in place that work together and represents a “partial strategy”: primarily the fishing gear (traps) and live release of the sharks. For both of these shark species the discard post-harvest mortality, or proportion of individuals that die as a result of interaction with traps/pots, is considered to be low. Thus, should the populations of either of these shark species be outside their biological limits, the live release from traps has been demonstrated to have high post-release survivorship, and thus would not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of these species. This scoring issue meets SG80. Issues regarding the accuracy of the anecdotal live releases of sharks are addressed in PI

Justification 2.2.3. c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected

to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits

Guidepost or hindering recovery. Met? Y The status of, horn sharks (Heterodontus francisci) and swell sharks (Cephaloscyllium ventriosum) is poorly known. However, as described in scoring issue b, the use of traps and live release of sharks, are considered to be measures that result in low mortality of the individuals captured, and thus are expected to result in the fishery not causing any of these species to be outside biologically based limits.

Justification This meets the requirements of the SG 60 level. References M. Ramade and FEDECOOP technician pers. comm. (2015); Ramade et al. (2013, 2014, 2015); Shester (2008) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (See Table 21, page 72, for Scoring 80 Methodology): CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 27 Table 24. Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4

PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Research is undertaken, A research plan provides A comprehensive research plan as required, to achieve the management system provides the management system the objectives consistent with a strategic approach with a coherent and strategic with MSC’s Principles 1 to research and reliable approach to research across P1, and 2. and timely information P2 and P3, and reliable and timely

sufficient to achieve the information sufficient to achieve objectives consistent the objectives consistent with with MSC’s Principles 1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Guidepost and 2. Met? (Y) (N) (Y) (N) Research by INAPESCA is undertaken as required to achieve objectives that are consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. This research is usually organized in Annual Operative Plans and is determined by the current needs of the fishery (e.g. INAPESCA 2010). There is an old Monitoring Plan (INAPESCA 2006) that describes sampling protocols to investigate lobster reproductive biology and to conduct massive fisheries sampling. The objectives of this Plan were to obtain reproductive information to support the season closure and the minimum size rule and to obtain biometric information to determine equivalences of minimum size to cephalothorax length and tail weight. A more comprehensive outline of a Research Program is found in the Draft of the Management Plan, but no current active document contains a full comprehensive description of the Plan as required in terms of At the first annual surveillance audit, the INAPESCA Regional Center in La Paz provided evidence of a modified their regular Annual Operative Program (POA; INAPESCA 2016) with structure and content that better fits the requirements “a written document that includes a specific research plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research” (CR CB4.10.3). Therefore this scoring issue meets SG60 but not SG80. This document satisfies the MSC requirements for a plan with a strategic approach

stification to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives

Ju consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The SG80 is met. B Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and are timely fashion. widely and publicly available.

Guidepost Met? (Y) (N) (N)

INAPESCA has made results of research available but it has taken excessive time to reach interested parties and are often not widely and publicly available. This situation meets the standard at SG60 but not SG80.

Justification References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (See Table 21, page 72, for Scoring Methodology): 60 70

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 28 PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3-1. A research plan must be developed as a written document that includes a plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research. The plan must provide the management system with a strategic approach to research and

reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. 3-2. Results of research conducted to inform management actions must be disseminated to all parties in a timely fashion.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 29 7.2 Appendix 2. Stakeholder submissions (if any)

No stakeholder comments were received. See Section 4.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 30 7.3 Appendix 3. Client Action Plan

7.3.1 Original Client Action Plan

Presented as nested in the condition tables in the re-assessment report. Table 25. Condition 1-1

Performance PI 1.1.2(b) Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Indicator Score 75 Rationale There’s no definition of limit reference point. Define explicit reference points that are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The Condition Limit Reference Point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The Target Reference Point works to maintain the stock at a level consistent with Bmsy or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, appropriate reference points have been identified and initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started. 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, appropriate reference have been discussed and accepted by the community. The process to formalize the publication of the Milestones reference points has started.

3. Surveillance 3 (2019): By the third year, the reference points have been published in the official gazette and are ready to be used in the following fishing season. 4. Surveillance 4 (2020): By the fourth year the reference points are defined and operate according to the requirements of PI 1.1.2. Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP 1. Surveillance (2017): By the first year, appropriate reference points have been identified and initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started. Activities: - Review biological aspects that determine lobster population dynamics. - Identify biomass levels that could cause recruitment to be compromised. - Identify fishing mortality levels that produce MSY. - Conduct a workshop to consult with fishers and experts if the Client action identified reference points are appropriate for the stock and the plan fishery. - Initial simulation testing is conducted. Expected - Meeting minutes outcome:

Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 2. Surveillance (2018): By the second year, appropriate reference have been discussed and accepted by the community. The process to formalize the publication of the reference points has started.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 31 Activities: - Testing is completed and reference points are established. - A final workshop is conducted where reference points are discussed and approved by fishers, authorities and stakeholders. - Consultations are conducted to agree on the mechanism to formalize the use of the approved reference points for the fishery. Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Draft of National Fishing Chart or Management plan Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 3. Surveillance (2019): By the third year, the reference points have been submitted for publication in the official gazette and are ready to be used in the following fishing season Activities: - Annual meeting to update the stock status and evaluate it from the reference points - Submitting to CONAPESCA the draft the National Fishing Chart or Management Plan, for the official publication Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report - Official publication of National Fishing Chart or Management Plan Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 4. Surveillance (2020): By the fourth year the reference points are defined and operate according to the requirements of PI 1.1.2. Activities: - Annual meeting to update the stock status and evaluate it from the reference points Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report Expected Score expected to increase to 80, condition is closed score: Consultation Letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan on condition

Table 26. Condition 1-2

Performance PI 1.2.2(a) There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Score 65 The red rock lobster fishery of Baja California has operated under the application of traditional passive management strategies such as minimum legal size and protection Rationale of egg bearing females. For this reason, there are no binding documents with well- defined, pre-agreed harvest control rules that are designed to reduce effort in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points (SG80). At SG60 HCRs don’t need to be well defined, there needs to be “at least some

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 32 implicit agreement supported by past management actions from which to understand that ‘generally understood’ rules exist, and there should be no reason to expect that management will not continue to follow such generally understood rules in future” (MSC Interpretations Log). The lobster chapter in the Red Book (Vega 2006) declares that if Est=(Bt_Actual)⁄B_MSY , “stock status is determined according to the following decision rule:” Status 1. Est ≤ 1: The stock is below optimum level ⇒ Recovery strategy required. Status 2. Est > 1: The stock is above optimum level ⇒ Fishery with further development potential. Status 3. Est = 1: The stock is at optimum level ⇒ The fishery is at the adequate level. The team did not receive any evidence that this rule is systematically used either to define a recovery strategy or to explicitly describe how to compute the catch amount for further development of the fishery. There wasn’t either any evidence of a formal procedure to translate or connect actual actions to the decision reached if the rule was applied. . For example under “recovery strategy” there are no procedures or actions, explaining how the strategy would change the length of the closure season or the number of active traps. Fishing effort is regulated based on an internal process at each cooperative that takes into account the performance of fishers, stock size, technical recommendations from INAPESCA staff and economic factors (see details in section 4.8 on Management in the Background). This process is guaranteed as a safe guard to hold the exclusive rights granted in the concession title obtained to harvest a specific area. As per the needs at the SG 60, this is interpreted as an informal approach in which understood rules are in place and are consistent with the harvest strategy. The MSC Interpretations log also says that “Evidence that positive action has been taken in the past should be considered to be evidence that there is a generally understood rule in place.” To indicate “whether the fishery will in future take appropriate management action in line with what they perceive as the ‘generally understood’ rule. The history of the fishery also demonstrates that in practice, fishing pressure has been consistently and systematically maintained to keep the stock above it’s optimal level (Bmsy proxy). The current approach doesn’t act to reduce exploitation effort as a limit reference point is approached because no limit reference point has been declared, but evidence indicates an effective process to modify the current operation of tools and agreements to prevent the stock to depart from the estimated current biomass status above the level producing MSY. Although not adhering precisely to the definition at SG60, the team considered that the approach is equivalent in intent and outcome and accepted it meets the standard at SG60. Because there’s no explicit pre-agreed, well-defined rule in place, the fishery cannot meet SG80. Condition The harvest control rule must be pre-agreed, well defined and in place; it must be consistent with the harvest strategy to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as

the limit reference point is approached. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, the harvest control rule is proposed and Milestones initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 33 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, the harvest control rule has been pre- agreed and is well defined. The rule has been discussed and accepted by the community. The process to formalize the publication of the control rule has started. 3. Surveillance 3 (2019): By the third year, the harvest control rule is pre-agreed, published in the official gazette and is ready to be used in the following fishing season in parallel with the reference points. 4. Surveillance 4 (2020): By the fourth year the harvest control rule is well defined, in place and operating according to the requirements of PI 1.2.2. Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP 1. Surveillance (2017): By the first year, the harvest control rule is proposed and initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started. Activities: - Conduct a workshop to consult with fishers and experts if the identified harvest control rules are appropriate for to maintain or reach the reference points. - Initial simulation testing is conducted. Expected Meeting minutes outcome: Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 2. Surveillance (2018): By the second year, the harvest control rule has been pre- agreed and is well defined. The rule has been discussed and accepted by the community. The process to formalize the publication of the control rule has started. Activities: - Testing is completed and HCR are established. - A final workshop is conducted where HCR are discussed and Client action plan approved by fishers, authorities and stakeholders. - Consultations are conducted to agree on the mechanism to formalize the use of the approved HCR for the fishery. Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Draft of National Fishing Chart or Management plan Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 3. Surveillance (2019): By the third year, the harvest control rule is pre-agreed, published in the official gazette and is ready to be used in the following fishing season in parallel with the reference points. Activities: - Annual meeting to update the stock status and evaluate it from the reference points to take action related with HCR. - Submitting to CONAPESCA the draft the National Fishing Chart or Management Plan, for the official publication Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report - Official publication of National Fishing Chart or Management Plan

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 34 Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 4. Surveillance (2020): By the fourth year the harvest control rule is well defined, in place and operating according to the requirements of PI 1.2.2. Activities: - Annual meeting to update the stock status and evaluate it from the reference points to take action related with HCR. Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report Expected Score expected to increase to 80, condition is closed score: Consultation on Letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan condition

Table 27. Condition 1-3

Performance PI 1.2.2(b) There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Score 65 The Guidance to the CR V1.3 indicates in GCB2.6, that uncertainty can be addressed by testing either through simulation, comparison with analogous fisheries or empirical Rationale testing. No evidence was provided to indicate that such type of testing or other approach to evaluate the potential impacts of the main uncertainties on the decisions made after application of the control rule. The SG80 cannot be met in this scoring issue. Condition The selection of the control rule must take into account the main uncertainties. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, the main sources of uncertainty affecting the performance of the HCR have been identified and a basic analytical structure has been outlined. Some initial testing has taken place. Milestones 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, analyses have been completed and the

main uncertainties have been accounted for in the performance of the HCR. The new or revised HCR is incorporated in the regulations and the process to formalize its publication in the official gazette has started. Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA

Client action plan 1. Surveillance (2017): By the first year, the main sources of uncertainty affecting the performance of the HCR have been identified and a basic analytical structure has been outlined. Some initial testing has taken place. Activities: - Annual meeting to evaluate the stock status, the reference points and the HCR, testing some simulation methods including uncertainty Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 35 Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage

score: 2. Surveillance (2018): By the second year, analyses have been completed and the main uncertainties have been accounted for in the performance of the HCR. The new

or revised HCR is incorporated in the regulations and the process to formalize its publication in the official gazette has started. Activities: Annual meeting to evaluate the stock status, the reference points

and the HCR, with simulation methods including uncertainty Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Draft of National Fishing Chart or Management plan Expected Score expected to increase to 80, condition is closed

score: Consultation on Letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan condition

Table 28. Condition 2-1

PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to Performance determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage Indicator retained species

Score 75

Rationale See PI 2.1.3 d

By the second surveillance provide information at the species level that is adequate to Condition 2-1 detect any increase in risk level due changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the partial strategy in place. 11. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year information is being collected on bait/retained Milestones 2-1 species with sufficient level of accuracy. 12. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents information at the species level on the volume and origin of bait and other retained species in this fishery. Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP, CONAPESCA Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year information is being collected on bait/retained species. Activities: At this stage FEDECOOP with the support of INAPESCA will start a program for taxonomic identification of all retained and baits species. A control will Client action plan be put in place to implement that record the volume and source of the bait used. Expected By the first surveillance the client will provide evidence that bait data outcome: collection is being collected for the first year. This will include a list of bait species with scientific names preliminary data on volumes and evidence that the monitoring system has been improved.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 36 Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage. score: Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents information at the species level on the volume and origin of bait and other retained species in this fishery.

Activities: FEDECOOP will continue the record for bait and with the support of INAPESCA will analyze all information collected monthly (Record for Bait and Landing Records). Expected By the second surveillance the client will provide a technical report, per outcome: fishing season, which includes characterization of species used as bait in lobster fishing, specifying volume by species and source. Expected Expected score: 80, condition is closed. score:

Consultation on Letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan condition

Table 29. Condition 2-2

Performance PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine Indicator the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Score 70 Rationale See PI 2.2.3

Condition By the third surveillance, provide accurate information at the species level on the volume (weight) of bycatch species in this fishery, information and evidence of end use of sharks and other bycatch species. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, data collection of bycatch species with logbooks has been improved. This includes the annotation of the type and number of sharks Milestones captured and a comment on whether they were retained or discarded dead or released alive.

2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents evidence that information of bycatch species is being systematically collected and analyzed.

Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, data collection of bycatch species with logbooks has been improved. This includes the annotation of the type and number of sharks captured and a comment on whether they were retained or discarded dead or released alive. Client action plan At this stage FEDECOOP with the support of INAPESCA will identify all bycatch Activities: species, including sharks, fish and invertebrates and will start to record volume of bycatch species in each of the concession areas of the SCPP within the unit of assessment.

Expected Report of bycatch species during the lobster season 2017/18 outcome:

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 37 Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage. score: Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents evidence that information of bycatch species is being systematically collected and analyzed.

Activities: The client, together with the staff of INAPESCA will continue the application of an improved system of recording for bycatch species and this is systematically and continuously applied over the entire client group.

Report of bycatch species during the lobster season 2018/19 Expected outcome: No anticipated changes in score at this stage. Expected score: Surveillance 3 (2019): By the third year client presents information on bycatch species (quantity, composition and end use) that is sufficient to estimate outcome status.

Activities: The client, together with the staff of INAPESCA will continue the application of an improved system of recording for bycatch species and this is systematically and continuously applied over the entire client group.

Expected Report of bycatch species during the lobster season 2018/19, which outcome: incorporates information on volumes, composition and end use of bycatch species.

Expected 80, condition is closed score: Consultation on A letter of support from INAPESCA in relation with action plan condition

Table 30. Condition 3-1

Performance PI 3.2.4 (a) The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management Indicator Score 60

Research by INAPESCA is undertaken as required to achieve objectives that are consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. This research is usually organized in Annual Operative Plans and is determined by the current needs of the fishery (e.g. INAPESCA 2010). There is an old Monitoring Rationale Plan (INAPESCA 2006) that describes sampling protocols to investigate lobster reproductive biology and to conduct massive fisheries sampling. The objectives of this Plan were to obtain reproductive information to support the season closure and the minimum size rule and to obtain biometric information to determine equivalences of minimum size to cephalothorax length and tail weight. A more comprehensive outline of a Research Program is found in the Draft of the Management Plan, but no current active document contains a full comprehensive description of the Plan as required in

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 38 terms of “a written document that includes a specific research plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research” (CR CB4.10.3). Therefore this scoring issue meets SG60 but not SG80. A research plan must be developed as a written document that includes a plan for the fishery under Condition assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research. The plan must provide the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. 1. Surveillance (2017): By the first year the management plan must be published in the official gazette; it´s including the general research program with objectives and goals in the short, Milestones medium and long term. 2. Surveillance (2018). By the second year the client must present evidence of the evaluation of results of the program research and it´s review for updating objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP Client action 1. Surveillance (2017): Surveillance (2017): By the first year the management plan was published plan in the official gazette; it´s including the general research program with objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term. Activities: - Public consultation of the draft of management plan for lobster fishery, to submit at CONAPESCA to formalize it.

- Annual meeting to discuss at research plan to reach the objectives and conditions of the certification. Expected - Official publication of the lobster management plan. outcome: - Minutes of meeting - Research plan whit objectives and goals in short, medium and long term

Expected No expected change of score score: Surveillance (2018 ): By the second year the client presents evidence of the evaluation of results of the program research and it´s review for updating objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term Activities: - Annual meeting to evaluate the results of the program research 2017 - Updating objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term form the program research 2018. Expected - Minute of meeting outcome: - Research plan whit objectives and goals in short, medium and long term

Expected 80, condition is closed score: Consultation A letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan on condition

Table 31. Condition 3-2

Performance PI 3.2.4 (b) The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management Indicator

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 39 Score 60

Rationale INAPESCA has made results of research available but it has taken excessive time to reach interested parties and is often not widely and publicly available. This situation meets the standard at SG60 but not SG80. Condition Results of research conducted to inform management actions must be disseminated to all parties in a timely fashion.

1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year annual meetings between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP Milestones must be held after each fishing season to discuss results of the analysis of the fishery. 2. Surveillance (2018). By the second year, the client must present evidence that the annual meeting between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP are implemented after each lobster season. Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP Client action plan Surveillance (2017): Annual meetings between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP are held after each fishing season to discuss results of the analysis of the fishery.

Activities: - Annual meeting to evaluate the results of the lobster season 2016/17

Expected - Minute of meeting outcome: - Stock assessment report

Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 2. Surveillance (2018): By the second year the client presents evidence of the annual meeting

between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP are implemented after each lobster season.

Activities: - Annual meeting to evaluate the results of the lobster season 2017/18

Expected - Minute of meeting outcome: - Stock assessment report Expected Expected score: 80, condition is closed.

score: Consultation Letter of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan on condition

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 40 7.3.2 Additional Actions Agreed to at the 1st Annual Surveillance Audit to Meet Audit Requirements. Meeting Minutes. December 5, 2017.

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 41

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 42

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 43

Version 2-0 (October 2017) | © SCS Global Services Page 44